Effective Aug. 1, state services, including the state health plans and welfare, will no longer be given to illegal immigrants in Colorado. This law, enacted by Gov. Bill Owens, in considered the... Read More

Aug 29, '06

Quote from studentmalenurse

When i say put yourself in others situation and there would be less problems, i mean stop being self centered and think about others. Thats the reason why this country has so many problems already because of people who are in high places who dont care about anybody else, except themselves and their own.

What about the governments of the countries where these illegals originate? Let's crucify the right governments.

Aug 29, '06

Quote from Fuzzy

I was born and raised here. Where is my FREE HEALTHCARE, my FREE FOOD, my FREE HOUSING? I WANT IT, I WANT I WANT IT NOW!!!

Oh wait I'm one of those people who has a job with no health insurance kind of like a lot of other people who are US citizens. Since I don't have kids, I'm not eligible for public assistance because I make too much money. Oh yeah, I don't speak or understand Spanish so I haven't a clue how to get public assistance through fraud and illegal documentation. :angryfire

I think that other states need to follow Colorado's lead in this matter. I also would like to see businesses shut down for hiring illegals. I don't care what country they come from. The US is the only country where a CRIMINAL can stand up and demand services without fear of arrest. I don't understand our government sometimes.

Fuzzy

There's your answer. You are making money, not picking produce or cleaning houses or doing construction. You are not reproducing. Shame on you. Oh, and go learn Espanol.

Aug 29, '06

Originally Posted by TheCommuter
I know this post is going to be slightly off the subject, but here it is. It would be nice if more illegal immigrants settled in sparsely populated states such as Wyoming or North Dakota to alleviate the 'congestion' that has occurred in the border states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.

Actually there are quite a few hispanic people in Wyoming. They work in the sugar beet fields, some of the mom and pop lumber mills, and in the restaraunt/hotel business. I don't think that they work in the oil patch or the gas fields because those companies check for citizenship as well as do drug tests, etc. Just because a state is sparsely populated doesn't mean that they don't have a problem with illegal aliens. I have a correction officer friend that says that there are more hispanics in our small town jails than there are the white majority. This is something that alot of people don't realize.

Fuzzy

Aug 29, '06

Quote from hm2viking

the supreme court explicitly expanded the 14th amendment in wong kim ark and ruled that being born on american soil makes you an american citizen even if your biological parents are ineligible for citizenship and that government cannot use this as a reason to deny citizenship. the court has revisited this issue on several occasions and not reversed itself. bottom line of the ruling is that us citizenship through birth in the us is a constitutional right. the un declaration of human rights of which our government is a signatory also establishes that all people have a right to a nationality. any attempt of congress to redefine citizenship issues would be subject to court challenge and ruled as unconstitutional by the courts. (arguably there would also be due process violations, cruel and unusual punishment arguments as well as a violation of the ninth and tenth amendment issues relating to reserved rights of the people.)

you keep referring to un law: the us pointedly adopts the policy that we are not under sovereignty, neither are our laws, to the un. in any case, the u.s. being a signatory does not bind us with upholding these rules for mexican citizens. and failure under your un rules would not be an american failure, but a mexican failure.

your assertions that the court has supremacy on such issues, and that it has already decided such issues on point are both incorrect.

in wong kim ark the court found that a man, born within the united states to chinese citizens who were lawfully residing here, was a citizen of the united states.

under wong kim ark, the following persons born in the united states are explicitly citizens:

* children born to us citizens
* children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the united states (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws.

i didn't make that last, bold part up: it's part of the 1898 wong kim ark decision.

wong kim ark did not explicitly decide whether u.s.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the united states" (it was not necessary to answer this question since wong kim ark's parents were legally present in the united states at the time of his birth).

the 1982 plyler v. doe is partially on point. and that was a 5-4 decision. there is no ready reassurance that the court would rule as such today, were plyler directly revisited, or if the issue of citizenship of children of illegal aliens born on american soil were visited for the first time, under a lens of plyler.
"plyler v. doe did not explicitly address the question of so-called "anchor babies" born in the united states to illegal immigrant parents; the children dealt with in the case were born outside the u.s. and had entered the country illegally along with their parents."

plyler applies the concept of 'jurisdiction' for the purposes of providing benefits to illegals, specifically schooling.

plyler contains the concept that there be no distinction between legal and illegal when considering 'jurisdiction' for applying benefits, specifically, the benefit of public education. however, plyler is not a case directly on point. plyler merely asserts, for the purposes of public schooling, that jurisdictional burden is met by location. (it might be true that a supporting footnote of plyler does make the case that plyler applies to the 14th, but that is the footnoted opinion of one of plyler's supporting justices, and not part of the actual decision.)

the problem with applying plyler to the 14th amendment is that it makes the specific distinctions of the two-fold test, as applied in the 14th amendment, redundent. so there is no legal crossover or on point case law to suggest that such an application does meet the burden of establishing 'jurisdiction' vis a vi the 14th. it is likely, due to the context of the 14th, that the plyler burden would not rise to the intent of the 14th. in fact, there is on point case law that refutes that plyler would be on point: wong kim ark, discussed above, and elk v. wilkins, discussed below, both are on point to the concept that the two fold test is more then a redundent concept.

a dissenting opinion from the closely decided plyler:

"[t]he constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that the majority was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".

the inherent concern in plyler was that, since the congress had 'failed to do it's job' on this issue, an appropriate remedy was congressional action. plyler hints that congressional action would force the courts to revisit and reconsider the issue.

under the supreme court precedent of afroyim v. rusk, loss of u.s. citizenship is possible under the following circumstances:

* fraud in the naturalization process. technically this is not loss of citizenship, but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a u.s. citizen.

attempting to illegally cross to create an 'anchor baby' could well be conceived as fraud in the naturalization process, leading to a revocation of citizenship for such children. that is supreme court precedent.

"there have been several subsequent cases involving the citizenship status of people born to aliens legally within the united states, but the supreme court has never explicitly ruled whether-or-not the fourteenth amendment grants children of illegal immigrants automatic citizenship. "

there is legal precedent in both the concepts that mere birth does not establish citizenship and that congressional action has supremacy on such decisions: congress was considered by the courts to be the appropriate venue to establish the question of the citizenship of native americans whose 'jurisdiction' was previously established by the supreme court to not meet a burden of mere birth, considering that treaties had made indian lands their own jurisdictions:

in fact, indians are citizens due to a clarifying act of congress: the indian citizenship act of 1924. this sets the precedent that congressional action has supremacy, as the 1924 federal law is considered to have differently settled the previous 1884 elk v. wilkins supreme court decision that denied citizenship due to mere location of birth.

but here is the kicker, and the constitutional concept that congress has supremacy in such decisions regarding the 14th:

section 5 of the 14th amendment: the congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. your assertion that the courts would have supremacy in deciding issues of the 14th amendment over congress is directly refuted, by the 14th amendment.

~faith,
timothy.

Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Aug 29, '06

Aug 29, '06

Tim,
I am glad that you took the time to read Wong Kim Ark. I will stand on my assertion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what are considered to be Constitutional rights in the constitution. I think that you may have missed the other point that I was making. Jus Soli is part of English Common Law and by extension US law.

Under the Chinese Exclusion Act people of chinese origin were not legally allowed to become citizens. Taking a parallel to today the Chinese were the guest workers of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The court made the point that regardless of the eligibility of the parents for citizenship that anyone born in the US was considered a citizen and could not be denied citizenship. The court indicated through this decision that they took an expansionist viewpoint of Jus Soli as a constitutional right.

The other reference about the 14th amendment and alienage that I posted was that the court did not believe that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children. I think that it is logically inconsistent to be prolife and simultaneously attempt to remove/deny the protections of law and the courts from children because of the mistakes of parents. Arguably, the courts have specifically extended the protections of Jus Soli and due process to these children because of their vulnerability. The courts have in the past thrown out congressional acts because of an impermissible infringement on individual liberties. So while congress may have the ability to write laws that interpret/implement the 14th amendment the Supreme Court does have the final say as to whether these laws are an impermissible infringement on the rights of the individual. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed as a specific expansion of the Bill of Rights to be equally applied to people living in all states. Section 5 was not a clause meant to limit the rights of people but can certainly be read as an authorization for Congress to pass legislation as needed to expand and protect the civil liberies and rights of all people living in the United States but not the right to constrict or selectively remove previously granted rights.

One other consideration: Can you guarantee that your ancestors were legal immigrants? Removing/modifying citizenship by birth opens a pandoras box of unending court challenges.

There needs to be a realistic immigration policy established. Part of that is to attack the economic conditions driving people north at the source. (Land reform, governmental reforms, and demands for labor/environmental protection laws.)

I think that we should all be careful about using terms to describe immigrants or thie children that could be construed as either pejorative and/or racist.

1. states parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
commentary: children are deserving of legal protection against discrimination by all countries.

article 7

1. the child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. states parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

comment: attempts to remove or deny citizenship would render children born here stateless. the laws of the us and in the states require the issuance of a birth certificate. ultimately, rendering children stateless creates a group of refugees. under the constitution children born here are recognized as citizens. the only proof required for any child of us citizenship and nationality is their birth certificate. this is a defacto recognition of their legal status within the us whether their parents came over on the mayflower or were economic refugees from central and south america.

Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Aug 30, '06

Aug 30, '06

another article discussing citizenship by birth:
the first section of the amendment begins by guaranteeing that "all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united states and of the state wherein they reside."
comment: jurisdiction as applied to this clause means that the individual is subject to the laws and enforcement powers of the states.
ohio rep. john bingham,the principal architect of section 1, had spent most of his career campaigning for the rights of slaves and immigrants. even before the civil war, he had laid out a vision of "one people, one constitution, and one country!" states had no "rights" to interfere with their citizens' constitutional rights: "the equality of the right to live; the right to know; to argue and to utter, according to conscience; to work and enjoy the product of their toil, is the rock on which [the] constitution rests, its sure foundation and defense."immigrants enjoyed those rights as fully as natives, he insisted, because the constitution obeyed "that higher law given by a voice out of heaven: 'ye shall have the same law for the stranger as for one of your own country.'"

today's know-nothings are attempting to avoid this central tenet of american democracy by deliberately distorting the meaning of the 14th amendment....

but there is no shred of evidence in the record to support this strained interpretation. the wording of the clause was designed to exclude from citizenship chiefly the children of diplomats living in the united states under the protection of their countries of origin. and the proponents were utterly clear that birthright citizenship would reach american-born chinese (whose parents were barred from naturalization) and mexicans in the southwest.

ultimately it boils down to a careful reading of procedural history as well as matters of simple justice. congressman bingham was the original architect behind both the writing and passage of the 14th amendment so his recorded writings and speeches do have an impact on interpretation of both the equal protection and citizenship clauses within the amendment.

1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Quoting a UN document is meaningless. Negative points for using this "New World Order" pap for your argument.

Mike

Aug 30, '06

While I agree that the sins of the father should not be visited on the child, not granting a reward that was never rightfully the child's is NOT a punishment to that child.

~faith,
Timothy.

Aug 30, '06

Quote from ZASHAGALKA

While I agree that the sins of the father should not be visited on the child, not granting a reward that was never rightfully the child's is NOT a punishment to that child.

~faith,
Timothy.

Citizenship is not a reward. It is an affirmative birthright under both Jus Soli and the Fourteenth Amendment. I have never defended people here under illegal status. There is no reasonable interpretation of section 1 other than citizenship is a birthright guaranteed to children by the constitution.

Aug 30, '06

Quote from HM2Viking

Citizenship is not a reward. It is an affirmative birthright under both Jus Soli and the Fourteenth Amendment. I have never defended people here under illegal status. There is no reasonable interpretation of section 1 other than citizenship is a birthright guaranteed to children by the constitution.

Except that Jus Soli was clearly intended in the 14th Amendment to be ONE part of a TWO part Citizenship test. Jurisdiction, the legal RIGHT to BE in that place of birth, is the second part of that test.

~faith,
Timothy.

Aug 30, '06

Quote from HM2Viking

Tim,
I am glad that you took the time to read Wong Kim Ark. I will stand on my assertion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what are considered to be Constitutional rights in the constitution. I think that you may have missed the other point that I was making. Jus Soli is part of English Common Law and by extension US law.

Under the Chinese Exclusion Act people of chinese origin were not legally allowed to become citizens. Taking a parallel to today the Chinese were the guest workers of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The court made the point that regardless of the eligibility of the parents for citizenship that anyone born in the US was considered a citizen and could not be denied citizenship. The court indicated through this decision that they took an expansionist viewpoint of Jus Soli as a constitutional right.

The other reference about the 14th amendment and alienage that I posted was that the court did not believe that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children. I think that it is logically inconsistent to be prolife and simultaneously attempt to remove/deny the protections of law and the courts from children because of the mistakes of parents. Arguably, the courts have specifically extended the protections of Jus Soli and due process to these children because of their vulnerability. The courts have in the past thrown out congressional acts because of an impermissible infringement on individual liberties. So while congress may have the ability to write laws that interpret/implement the 14th amendment the Supreme Court does have the final say as to whether these laws are an impermissible infringement on the rights of the individual. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed as a specific expansion of the Bill of Rights to be equally applied to people living in all states. Section 5 was not a clause meant to limit the rights of people but can certainly be read as an authorization for Congress to pass legislation as needed to expand and protect the civil liberies and rights of all people living in the United States but not the right to constrict or selectively remove previously granted rights.

One other consideration: Can you guarantee that your ancestors were legal immigrants? Removing/modifying citizenship by birth opens a pandoras box of unending court challenges.

There needs to be a realistic immigration policy established. Part of that is to attack the economic conditions driving people north at the source. (Land reform, governmental reforms, and demands for labor/environmental protection laws.)

I think that we should all be careful about using terms to describe immigrants or thie children that could be construed as either pejorative and/or racist.

And how can we Americans "attack the economic conditions driving people north at the source"? And what about countries that are so over-populated that having anything resembling an economy is impossible? How are we to interfere with another friendly government's economic policies?

Aug 30, '06

Quote from ZASHAGALKA

While I agree that the sins of the father should not be visited on the child, not granting a reward that was never rightfully the child's is NOT a punishment to that child.

The children of illegal immigrants who were born on American soil are accurately referred to as 'anchor babies' because their birth makes deportation of the parents nearly impossible. Since the children are U.S. citizens, they qualify for AFDC, food stamps, low-income housing vouchers, WIC, medicaid, and other public assistance goodies.